1 |
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:11:11 +0300 |
3 |
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> > I think it's a good idea to strongly encourage it, but actually forcing it |
8 |
>> > through cvs? No thanks. I'm not tracking down another dev just to fix a |
9 |
>> > spelling mistake. :P |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> How did the spelling mistake get there in the first place? A review |
12 |
>> system should reduce having them in the first place. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> People make mistakes. Anyways my point is that requiring a peer review for |
15 |
> trivial changes is just unneeded bureaucracy. Even for non-trivial changes, |
16 |
> it doesn't make sense to force someone who knows their eclass inside out and |
17 |
> knows what they're doing to get a review from someone else who may not have a |
18 |
> clue. I'm not saying that peer-review shouldn't be done; it's a very good |
19 |
> idea, especially if you're new, or unsure of your changes, or you have a team |
20 |
> consisting of more than one person. In fact I would support a policy that |
21 |
> said eclasses need to be reviewed before committing. But enforcing it through |
22 |
> cvs is never going to fly. Just use common sense. |
23 |
|
24 |
Sure it will; you just need to create the tools with flexibility in |
25 |
mind. For instance: |
26 |
|
27 |
1) Require peer review on all eclasses |
28 |
2) Do not require peer review for changes less than N lines |
29 |
3) enable a commiter to over-ride the review with some kind of option |
30 |
(--force or similar) |
31 |
4) enable an eclass-owner to opt-out of the review process entirely |
32 |
with some kind of flag. |
33 |
|
34 |
I am not aware of how robust the pre-commit hooks in cvs are so I |
35 |
cannot comment on how easy these things are to implement. |
36 |
|
37 |
-A |
38 |
|
39 |
> |
40 |
> If we were having ongoing issues with people breaking eclasses then I could |
41 |
> see where you're coming from. But as it is, it's a non-problem. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> -- |
45 |
> fonts, by design, by neglect |
46 |
> gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
47 |
> wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
48 |
> |